4 ms·

No. Ready your own link, the top 16 ships produce more particulate emissions (sulfur and nitrogen oxides especially), because of low regulations and cost press

No. Ready your own link, the top 16 ships produce more particulate emissions (sulfur and nitrogen oxides especially), because of low regulations and cost pressures driving the use of low quality fuels (bunker fuel).

pipo234 4y ago
I stand corrected. And agree that EU's regulation would also benefit from taking a more holistic view on pollution than my (erroneous) zealotting on CO2 alone.
- crote 4y ago
  That's already the case, actually! A lot of the European waters have had quite strict limitations on the fuel's NOx and SOx contents for over 15 years already - and shipping was pretty much the last remaining industry allowed to use such high-pollutant fuel.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    European waters - the ships burn the nasty shit in international waters and switch to clean fuel when approaching the countries. There needs to be some way to get them to burn the clean fuel all the time - perhaps by climate concerned nations removing naval protection from boats that aren't burning clean.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Global agreements have already been made to phase out the particulates globally and, before that in European areas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_control_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_control_area > Emission control areas (ECAs), or sulfur emission control areas (SECAs), are sea areas in which stricter controls were established to minimize airborne emissions from ships as defined by Annex VI[1] of the 1997 MARPOL Protocol. > The emissions specifically include SOx, NOx, ODSs and VOCs[2] and the regulations came into effect in May 2005.[3][4] Annex VI contains provisions for two sets of emission and fuel quality requirements regarding SOx and PM, or NOx, a global requirement and more stringent controls in special emission control areas (ECA).[5] The regulations stems from concerns about "local and global air pollution and environmental problems" in regard to the shipping industry's contribution. In January 2020, a revised more stringent Annex VI was enforced in the emission control areas with significantly lowered emission limits.[2] The original factoid hit the headlines because all that work was done and so people had the data to do comparisions. It was slow but steady work to improve the environment and somehow it got turned into "environmentalists are stupid, EVs are stupid, anyone to the left of Kanye is stupid, if they really believed in climate change they'd do X". https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/Sulphur-oxides-(SOx)-%E2%80%93-Regulation-14.aspx https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/Sulphur-oxi...
clairity 4y ago
exactly, this is the kind of essential detail that gets glossed over by climate zealotry, and also one of the reasons why we direly need to shift the conversation away from CO₂ (a gas that is essential to life on earth) to pollution (shit that kills millions of people right now). CO₂ and climate change is a diversionary tactic implicitly endorsed by the fossil fuel industry to focus us on an amorphous, far-future issue to grind away progress on pollution reduction now. and it's working, as evidenced by the fever-pitched focus on climate change rather than pollution, particularly by the neoliberal news outlets (npr, nyt, bbc, etc.).
marcosdumay 4y ago
Just a detail, but sulfur and nitrogen oxides are not particulate emissions. Sulfur comes from low quality fuel, but nitrogen and particulate emissions depend a lot on the engine too.

pipo234 4y ago

I stand corrected. And agree that EU's regulation would also benefit from taking a more holistic view on pollution than my (erroneous) zealotting on CO2 alone.

crote 4y ago
That's already the case, actually! A lot of the European waters have had quite strict limitations on the fuel's NOx and SOx contents for over 15 years already - and shipping was pretty much the last remaining industry allowed to use such high-pollutant fuel.
- bombcar 4y ago
  European waters - the ships burn the nasty shit in international waters and switch to clean fuel when approaching the countries. There needs to be some way to get them to burn the clean fuel all the time - perhaps by climate concerned nations removing naval protection from boats that aren't burning clean.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Global agreements have already been made to phase out the particulates globally and, before that in European areas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_control_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_control_area > Emission control areas (ECAs), or sulfur emission control areas (SECAs), are sea areas in which stricter controls were established to minimize airborne emissions from ships as defined by Annex VI[1] of the 1997 MARPOL Protocol. > The emissions specifically include SOx, NOx, ODSs and VOCs[2] and the regulations came into effect in May 2005.[3][4] Annex VI contains provisions for two sets of emission and fuel quality requirements regarding SOx and PM, or NOx, a global requirement and more stringent controls in special emission control areas (ECA).[5] The regulations stems from concerns about "local and global air pollution and environmental problems" in regard to the shipping industry's contribution. In January 2020, a revised more stringent Annex VI was enforced in the emission control areas with significantly lowered emission limits.[2] The original factoid hit the headlines because all that work was done and so people had the data to do comparisions. It was slow but steady work to improve the environment and somehow it got turned into "environmentalists are stupid, EVs are stupid, anyone to the left of Kanye is stupid, if they really believed in climate change they'd do X". https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/Sulphur-oxides-(SOx)-%E2%80%93-Regulation-14.aspx https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/Sulphur-oxi...

clairity 4y ago

exactly, this is the kind of essential detail that gets glossed over by climate zealotry, and also one of the reasons why we direly need to shift the conversation away from CO₂ (a gas that is essential to life on earth) to pollution (shit that kills millions of people right now). CO₂ and climate change is a diversionary tactic implicitly endorsed by the fossil fuel industry to focus us on an amorphous, far-future issue to grind away progress on pollution reduction now. and it's working, as evidenced by the fever-pitched focus on climate change rather than pollution, particularly by the neoliberal news outlets (npr, nyt, bbc, etc.).

marcosdumay 4y ago

Just a detail, but sulfur and nitrogen oxides are not particulate emissions. Sulfur comes from low quality fuel, but nitrogen and particulate emissions depend a lot on the engine too.